materials remain in ownership until payment

the_pen_turner

totally hypothetical. i see this a lot on facebook groups where a trademan does a job for someone who then wont pay.
some posters are saying that if you state on your invoice that all materials remain property of tradman until final payment that you can go and take them back

whats the law on this. most say that once its nailed down it cant be removed

_Brian

I know one chap who was having trouble getting paid, he turned up at 8am on a Sunday morning with a jackhammer and started lifting the concrete yard at a house he'd laid a month earlier.
After 15 minutes digging he had full payment, in cash too.

Mod
Boards.ie does not recommend such direct action

the_pen_turner

iv heard lads doing that too. its amazing how fast money can be found when this happens

uck51js9zml2yt

I remember a story from a trademan on boards doing similar

Peregrinus

The amusing anecdotes notwithstanding, a reservation of title clause (which is what the OP asks about) won't operate if the goods supplied can no longer be identified - you can only take back, e.g., the specific bricks which you supplied, and not a number of bricks equal to the number of bricks that you supplied - or once they have been incorporated inseparably into a finished product - you can't cut the buttons you supplied off the jacket to which they have been stitched -or have become part of the land (which would be the case with the concrete on the driveway).

the_pen_turner

What do they define as inseparable.

Say there was 3 pictures on the wall on hanging on a nail, one screwed to the wall and one glued. The hanging one is easy to remove and the glued one very hard. Presumably the glued one is inseparable. What about the screwed one. There is a little bit more work but it's designed to be moved.

Peregrinus

the_pen_turner wrote: »

What do they define as inseparable.

Say there was 3 pictures on the wall on hanging on a nail, one screwed to the wall and one glued. The hanging one is easy to remove and the glued one very hard. Presumably the glued one is inseparable. What about the screwed one. There is a little bit more work but it's designed to be moved.

You're talking there about what's a fixture, and what's simply furnishing/decoration.

The general rule is that if something has been incorporated into land/building in a way that it can't be removed without devaluing the land/building, then it's now a part of the land/building and can't be separately owned. This depends to some extent on how difficult it is to remove but more other factors, like what its function is. So, for example, it's equally easy to unscrew (a) a doorknob, and (b) a picture that has been screwed to the wall because it's too heavy to hang safely, but I'd have no hesitation in saying that the doorknob is a fixture while the picture is not.

NUTLEY BOY

_Brian wrote: »

I know one chap who was having trouble getting paid, he turned up at 8am on a Sunday morning with a jackhammer and started lifting the concrete yard at a house he'd laid a month earlier.
After 15 minutes digging he had full payment, in cash too.

Mod
Boards.ie does not recommend such direct action

There is no legal justification for that type of action, practically tempting though it is.

At the moment that Mr. Jackhammer starts lifting the concrete he appoints himself as the judge in the issue between him and the customer which he has decided in his favour - nemo judex in causa sua methinks.

Even if Mr. Jackhammer went to court and won, the relief(s) granted would likely not include an order allowing demolition.

Further, Mr. Jackhammer leaves himself open to prosecution for criminal damage as per the Criminal Damage Act 1991.

the_pen_turner

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're talking there about what's a fixture, and what's simply furnishing/decoration.

The general rule is that if something has been incorporated into land/building in a way that it can't be removed without devaluing the land/building, then it's now a part of the land/building and can't be separately owned. This depends to some extent on how difficult it is to remove but more other factors, like what its function is. So, for example, it's equally easy to unscrew (a) a doorknob, and (b) a picture that has been screwed to the wall because it's too heavy to hang safely, but I'd have no hesitation in saying that the doorknob is a fixture while the picture is not.

I used a picture because it could be hung different ways to see the difference legally

so you could take out a kitchen, take down internal doors, lift a laminate floor,

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

the_pen_turner

I agree. You hear loads of story's about tradesmen going back in and taking back their property.

Surly all you are doing is trespassing if you don't break in. Then that's a civil matter. The guards can't. Do anything only tell you to leave. They would have to take you to court

Peregrinus

the_pen_turner wrote: »

I used a picture because it could be hung different ways to see the difference legally

so you could take out a kitchen, take down internal doors, lift a laminate floor,

No. Nor break up a concrete driveway.

Peregrinus

the_pen_turner wrote: »

I agree. You hear loads of story's about tradesmen going back in and taking back their property.

Surly all you are doing is trespassing if you don't break in. Then that's a civil matter. The guards can't. Do anything only tell you to leave. They would have to take you to court

If you go in to remove property which still belongs to you, under a a valid retention of title clause, the landowner may sue you for trespass and (assuming the landowner is also the debtor) you can counterclaim for the sum you say is due to you.

But if you go in to remove property which doesn't belong to you that's either criminal damage or larceny or a bit of both, and the guards can most certainly get involved.

So you're taking a bit of a risk. You'd need to be very sure of your grounds. There's the complicating factor that, very often, your claim for the value of the (say) timber you supplied is against a builder, but if you go onto premises and remove the timber wrongly from the half-completed building it is the owner of the premises who suffers, and who sues you. So do not rely on the sympathy of the courts being on your side. You are not attempting to restore your position at the expense of the builder who stiffed you, but at the expense of another equally unfortunate creditor of the same builder.

Pat Mustard

the_pen_turner wrote: »

totally hypothetical. i see this a lot on facebook groups where a trademan does a job for someone who then wont pay.
some posters are saying that if you state on your invoice that all materials remain property of tradman until final payment that you can go and take them back

whats the law on this. most say that once its nailed down it cant be removed

There is a body of caselaw on Retention of Title (ROT) clauses in commercial contracts. As I recall, with ROT clauses, they are difficult to get watertight.